FR 2021-03534

The document from the Federal Register details a regulation implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard, designed to establish a temporary security zone in the San Diego Bay area. This measure is set to take place from March 10 to March 11, 2021, during specific hours from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. each day. The primary goal of this security zone is to prevent potential threats such as terrorist activities or accidents that could harm important officials or disrupt the public's safety during an official visit to the area.

Summary

The security zone will cover a specific section of San Diego Bay, and entry is strictly regulated. Only those who receive explicit permission from the Captain of the Port or their designated representative are allowed access. The rule is implemented without the usual process of prior notice and public comment, citing the urgency and necessity of protecting the official party as justification.

Significant Issues and Concerns

An essential concern with this document is the lack of transparency typically afforded by a public comment period. Such processes are generally regarded as critical for ensuring public involvement in rulemaking. The document's technical nature, including legal references and specific geographic coordinates, can be challenging for the general public to comprehend. This aspect might hinder broader public understanding and engagement with the regulation.

While the regulation states that there is no significant economic impact on small entities, it lacks a detailed explanation or data to back this claim. Without such an analysis, stakeholders might question the reliability of this assertion.

Public Impact

For the general public, this regulation will result in restricted access to parts of San Diego Bay for the specified time period. Individuals and businesses that depend on accessing these waters for commercial or recreational purposes might find their activities temporarily disrupted, albeit within a limited timeframe.

Stakeholder Impact

The primary stakeholders impacted by this regulation might be small business operators, such as tour boat companies or fishing charter services, who rely on these waterways for economic activities. However, the Coast Guard asserts that the regulation should not have a substantial impact on small entities, partially due to the zone's limited size and the typical level of commercial traffic in the area.

On the positive side, the regulation intends to ensure heightened safety and security for officials and the general public present around the Coast Guard Sector San Diego. The measure highlights the authorities' commitment to preventing potential threats in situations of heightened risk.

In conclusion, while the regulation addresses a crucial security necessity, it simultaneously raises questions about public involvement and clarity. Acknowledging the complexity and consequences of such measures is essential in balancing security needs with public transparency and stakeholder interests.

The Federal Register document regarding the temporary security zone in San Diego Bay includes financial references that merit closer examination. These references are crucial in understanding how the proposed rule might affect different governmental and private entities financially, albeit the document primarily focuses on security measures.

Summary of Financial References

The document cites the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which requires federal agencies to assess the financial impacts of their discretionary actions. Specifically, the Act concerns rules that could lead to the expenditure by state, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any single year. However, it is explicitly noted that this temporary security zone regulation will not result in expenditures reaching this substantial threshold.

Analysis of Financial Impact

The rule indicates that while some vessel owners or operators who plan to navigate through the security zone may be small entities, the enforcement of this regulation is not expected to cause a significant economic impact on such businesses. Despite this assertion, the document lacks a detailed financial breakdown to substantiate this claim. This absence of a comprehensive financial analysis might be considered an oversight, especially since rules like these can potentially affect small business operations. The financial threshold mentioned serves as a benchmark to highlight the level of financial impact that triggers further analysis or concern; the current rule does not meet this level.

Relationship to Identified Issues

One of the identified issues in the document is the lack of prior notice and opportunity for public comment regarding the establishment of this temporary rule. From a financial perspective, the inability to comment might concern those potentially impacted by unforeseen costs, as small businesses could face disruptions from unanticipated navigation restrictions. This could be significant for entities utilizing San Diego Bay, even if the overall economic impact does not reach the $100,000,000 threshold.

Moreover, the document utilises technical jargon and coordinates, which may exacerbate the difficulty for small businesses to evaluate potential financial implications accurately. Simplified language or financial diagrams could aid in demystifying these aspects, allowing for better financial planning and adjustment.

In conclusion, while the rule emphasizes that the economic effects are not substantial enough to warrant an extensive cost analysis, the absence of accessible financial detailing and public discourse could leave some stakeholders unprepared for any minor disruptions this rule may impose.